Posted
by
timothy
on Friday April 30, 2010 @09:30PM
from the new-spirit-of-openness dept.

shadowbearer writes "SF writer Peter Watts, a Canadian citizen, whose story we have read about beforein these pages, was sentenced three days ago in a Port Huron, MI court. There's not a lot of detail in the story, and although he is still being treated like a terrorist (cannot enter or pass through the US, DNA samples) he was not ordered to do any time in jail, was freed, and has returned home to his family. The judge in the case was, I believe, as sympathetic as the legal system would allow him to be."

Sorry, I see how that was unclear. I was intending to question the word _adult_. I'm used to kids who are able to keep an eye on what's going on and who report bad things to their parents, or will even step in if doing so will prevent someone from getting hurt. I meant to suggest that I know some kids who would be able to supervise those guards successfully, but I see how I failed to state that clearly.

When your kids can tell the difference between rude, mean, nasty, and actual danger, it makes you wonde

To be fair, he got out of his car while it was being searched in a routine border search. Not randomly on the street, but to make sure that you have declared everything you may be bringing across borders (you should recognize that this would be reasonable). Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol. Never mind

"This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer..."

"Standing too close to an officer" is a crime? OK, that's about the walking definition of a bad law.

What was Watts' crime? He asked the officers what they were doing.

He didn't strike anyone. He didn't kick anyone. According to the record he didn't even use harsh language. Apparently our law enforcement community has become so vicious and cowardly they'll beat people bloody just for looking at them wrong.

Peter Watts is a geek scifi writer. Judging from his photos, he weighs about 160. My wife could smack him around. He's about as threatening as a tuna sandwich.

But somehow, these law enforcement officers felt they needed to beat him senseless, leave his blood all over the pavement, and then mace him for good measure when honestly, a wedgie probably would have been overkill.

Scifi novelists, small-town mayors, Chinese diplomats, 75-year-old grandmas, epileptics having a seizure -- Is there ANYONE law enforcement doesn't want to beat bloody before talking to them any more?

A jury found him guilty of felony non-compliance, so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car.

Actually, from the reports, that's EXACTLY what he did, and the judge basically cut him loose for it.

he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers,

I am so sick of hearing this. Cowardice is no excuse for brutality. I grew up military. Come to one of my family dinners and let the Vietnam veterans in my family explain what a dangerous job is.

Looking at the Department of Labor statistics, being a cop is a VERY safe job. You know who gets killed on the job more often than police officers? Construction workers. Cab drivers. Fast food workers. Hotel clerks.

Hop over to the forums on "Officer.com" and listen to the boys on blue in their own words for a while. They'll tell you quite openly they feel absolutely no obligation to put themselves in harm's way for the "sheeple," and they proudly proclaim "I AM GOING HOME TONIGHT" no matter how many receptionists and secretaries have to die to make that happen.

I spent some time with the State Fire Association. Seems like everyone last one of those guys is missing an eye, ear or finger, and has a quietly proud story of how they traded that part of their body for some stranger's kid. I stand in awe of their dedication, sacrifice and courage.

The institutional cowardice and crutality of law enforcement stands in stark contrast.

Interesting, I'd never really looked it up. A quick look at fatal injuries per occupation yields this chart [bls.gov] from the BLS. In the homicides category the highest numbers by a ways are in retail sales, food preparation and sales supervisors;-?! Protective service occupations are actually a fair ways down the list.

I assume there are different ways of looking at it, but as someone who has worked a lot of retail sales, it does make a morbid kind of sense...

So you don't like police officers because their policies and procedures allow them to be safe.

To quote Peter himself, "... taxicab drivers suffer three times the homicide rate of any law enforcement category, that being a cabbie is the fifth-most-dangerous job in the US while Law Enforcement doesn’t even make the Top 10. If the risks associated with border patrol can be invoked to excuse the kind of violence I experienced, should we not extend the same immunity to cabbies?"

If you don't want to take on the risks associated with being a cab driver, get a cab with bulletproof glass separating the driver and the passengers, install a microphone for communication and door locking system and a money swivel, like they have in gas stations.

On the other hand, a cab driver is perfectly within their rights to get a conceal carry permit or train to legally carry a taser, just like police, for defensive purposes. Furthermore, innapropriate use will result in losing yo

Sorry, my point was more that I don't like anyone who abuses the privileges of their station, such as policies and procedures that allow them to be safe, to inflict cruelties on others.

Perspective anecdote: one of my personal "unknown heroes" is a highway cop who stood there calmly listening to this frustrated motorist he pulled over deliver this obscene tirade of vitriol. He just asked questions, wrote the ticket, and let the guy vent. No shouting, no arrest for disorderly conduct, no mace, no "he tripped in the car and hit his face on the steering wheel", nothing. Totally kept his cool. You could have balanced tigers on his cool. So when I read of situations like this, where a guard flies off the handle and beats the crap out of a tourist for daring to ask what the problem is, I know one bad cop doesn't mean all bad cops - I've seen the proof otherwise.

When an officer of the law resorts to the use of violence (and I mean bloody violence, not some wrestling lock or whatever) on a non-violent "offender" (regardless of any verbal aggressiveness), I consider that officer has failed in his duty. But what truly disturbs me is not that it inevitably happens - we're all human - but that it can be excused and abetted when it happens so blatantly. When the testimonies of those guards present not only don't match but contradict, when the guy laying on the ground covered in mace and his own blood gets dragged through the courts and convicted of a felony, when the officer who put him there does not even get an official reprimand let alone arrested himself... it has gone way past one officer losing his temper and making a mistake.

Officers claim they have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way because they actually don't.

Thanks. I was wondering when our boys in blue would give up even the pretense of that "protect and serve" nonsense. Now we can all acknowledge them as the knuckle-dragging cowardly bullies they are, instead of "the City's Finest."

BTW, no, "crutality" isn't a word. It's a typo. Probably because I was thinking of the word "cruelty" when I was typing "brutality."

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service. The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.

To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can wa

The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.

'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.

Really, Kramerd, you can tell your boys to rest easy in the squad car seats that have molded themselves to their hindquarters. We're a military family, and if I need to whistle up some help from the angry avenging terrifying Wrath of God, I'll call our women.:-)

'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.

Not really my point. Most publicly traded companies do the same thing with mission statements (albeit with their own specific purposes). Its more of CYA than anything else. I'm fairly certain that both officers and civilians have these expectations whether its written on the patrol car or not.

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service.

The police have gone to court multiple times to fight for the right to neither protect nor serve. It may be a reminder, but if so, it's a reminder of what police were like 50 years ago, not what they are now.

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service..."knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.

I'll try. The fault with the statements above is that they equate police officers with DHS guards. Despite having been on the wrong side of the law many times, I do believe that the vast majority of police officers are honest folks who foster good relations with their citizens and have honest intent(the only bad publicity seems to come from Los Angeles, with its officers up against crotch-grabbers [cnn.com] and coked-up madmen using babies for human shields [policeone.com]). I also agree that they're not out to cause trouble because they want to go home to their families without any bullshit.

However - DHS guards are not police officers. They are glorified security guards gone mad with the power they attained in the wake of 9/11. The vast majority of them face no danger, and the last one to be shot to death(since the '80's) passed under mysterious circumstances with his gun stolen, an obvious cover-up. This [ivpressonline.com] ICE "officer" drove at night with tinted windows and plowed through a stop sign, killing 3 women. Calling them "federal officers" is an insult to everybody else with "officer" in their title. They're on par with prison guards, for fuck's sake. I know because I get eye-fucked and sent to secondary on a regular basis by those assholes, because I always lose the staring contest. Why don't you try driving through a few of their checkpoints being preemptively treated like a criminal and having dogs run your car beacuse you "might" be a criminal?

Well, let's just say the other men who carry guns in uniform lose respect for you. And the sheeple, oh my, well the sheeple do truly horrible things.

They start voting against you on juries.

So do me a favor. Go tell your Dad that if he and his little buddies can't get their act together, then We the People are about to introduce them to the wonderful world of private security, where they can make almost a whole eight dollars an hour.:-)

I had a cousin who became a cop and he went from a nice boy to a bully telling "funny" stories about intimidating civilians (not criminals). It only took a couple years.

I also know police go to hookers one day and then spend the next day arresting them. Policing used to be about the law- now it's about power.

That's why I support mandatory 24x7 filming of all police activity. Sure- it protects them from false accusations. But the primary benefit is to keep them in line.

The first controversy in my city when the red light cameras went in was about the police running red lights when they were not on a call.Even when called on it- they felt running reds was just a privilege of the job.

I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down. They are waiting for a perceived threat and using these items in a manner consistent with official police policy (or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy).

Or they wait for some idiot hippie to speak out of turn, then they tase him despite his eloquent objection, "Don't tase me, bro!" He

I recently took a defensive driving course (because my insurance offered me a sizeable discount for doing so) and they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle unless instructed to do so by the officer. There really is no excuse.

Then you are an idiot. You don't understand why it's in there. It was never for the protection of the police. It was for your own protection. Think about it (I know, hard for you). You pull over on the right side of the road. Your door is on the left. You open it, and you are standing out in traffic. Safety is the one and only one reason that rule was ever started. However, since then, they've asserted that to be "normal" behavior and any abnormal behavior at all is dangerous. So now, it's an issue, not because of the police's safety, but for your own for not playing in traffic, and for your own because it will be seen as unusual behavior. There's nothing aggressive about getting out of the car. There was never an issue about it being bad for cops when the recommendation was created.

And he wasn't pulled over. So such comments indicate a lack of understanding about the situation. Every car search I've been involved in (seeing them or being searched in multiple border crossings both north and south of the US) the driver was out of the car. They want the driver to open the trunk and be there. But then, the last time I crossed the US border by car was more than 10 years ago, so they may have changed how they do things.

He never refused. He may not have complied with the preferred speed, but that is not a refusal. From the statements of the officers at the time of his arrest, there was less than 10 seconds from the time he was ordered to get in his car to the time he was physically prevented from entering his car by the officers. And he never stated he was unwilling or unable to comply, nor indicated that he was intending to not reenter his car. Nothing I've seen indicates the word "refused" is the correct one for this situation.

In some states a policeman will pull a gun on you if you get out of your car when he pulls you over. THEY think it's aggressive behavior, likely because it's hard to draw a gun -- either you or he -- seated in a car.

I doubt very much the original intention was the driver's safety. Lawmakers don't give a damn about your safety, they want power.

I was pulled over once near a gas station, so I pulled into the lot to get off of the street. When I pulled up, I got out of my car to talk to the officer. He FREAKED out, pulled out his gun, and told me to put my hands on my head and lay on the ground.

After he patted me down I asked him what the fuck was the problem. My license was expired. He told me not to get out of the car in the future because that makes them 'nervous'.

Sorry but I don't recognise any kind of law that says a police officer can beat you just because they feel like it. If any cop tried to lay a hand on me for such reasons while I am going about my own business, I'll break their arm in self defense. If they really press me, they'll be dead before they hit the ground and if I happen to die in the process of killing someone like that, then my life will have been a complete success. It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Just because some stranger says that I have to follow some specific code of conduct over a piece of OUR planet that they somehow have the right to "own" doesn't actually mean that I have to. I exist in this world too and I get to decide what is right and wrong for myself, no matter where I am. My personal code is simple: leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

You would think with all the news about police beatings of people with curiosity that people wouldn't be curious anymore. Really, the common sense that is taught in pretty much all education is don't do things to give police a reason to wonder whether or not they should beat you

No, common sense teaches that the only sensible thing to do if you see police is to shoot them on sight, before they have the chance to attack you.

I visited the US and drove around as a tourist once, got stopped by the police and did what folk in the UK do - I got out of the car to wait by the side of it to show the police that I wasn't going to do a runner. I didn't know that you sit inside the car until the police come to you in the USA, nobody told me this when I got my tourist visa stamped at immigration or when I picked up the hire car.

Things escalated very fast and I found myself surrounding by two or three police cars with people shouting stuff and pointing guns at me. Very scary when you're not quite sure why this is all happening. Fair play to the police officers, after a couple of minutes of me putting my hands in the air and shouting "Sorry, I am a tourist, I don't know what I've done" things calmed down to the point that we could have a chat and sort things out pleasantly (we all shook hands at the end of it and the cops pointed out where a local hotel was, my mission of the moment).

Not sure what the answer is, should foreign nationals have to read the local written driving test / read the handbooks before being allowed to drive a car in another country?

Peters hopefully has learned not to give police officers a reason to beat him.... It simply means that since the criminal (he was convicted, remember) was being a criminal in english, that he probably wasn't trying to smuggle anything over the mexican border at that time.

Dude, seriously? Let me guess. You're mall security waiting to hear back from the department on your test results? Got a whole closet full of badges and uniforms you like to try on in front of the mirror late at night when no one's watching, do you? Got the whole "You talkin' to me?" speech in flawless De Niro accent down cold, huh?

but what trained officers are supposed to do is expect the subject to do the worst possible thing...

No. Not even soldiers are trained to do that. Civilian law enforcement is trained to use good judgement. It is more important to know when NOT to shoot than it is to know when TO shoot. Keep running Mad Max fantasies through your head like anyone who COULD pull a gun WILL pull a gun, and you end up shooting a kid for no good reason like one ex-officer I personally know.

If you haven't been in a situation where a person wants to argue with cops and then for some unknown reason pulls out a gun,

Here's another nonsense argument I'm sick of. Since you're pressing the point, yes, I have been shot at. No, it's not pleasant at all. No, the fear that someone MIGHT take a shot at you is no excuse for beating civilians bloody.

That may be Watts' claim or your interpretation, but the charges for which he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer. This obviously does not jive with what Watts' claimed, though I found his original summary and the nauseating prose linked to in the article totally totally unsympathetic. I guess there was no video of the border crossing...I was hoping it would come out so the truth would be readily apparent.

You need to catch up on the story. The choking thing was shown to be a complete fabrication on cross-examination. The only thing that he was convicted of was not getting back into his car immediately.

nobody is going to assume that there is no knife, gun, etc present.

That is exactly what they should do. When the SAS was deployed to Northern Ireland, they were specifically told that if they shot someone who didn't turn out to have a gun, they would have no defence against a murder conviction. You should assume that somoene does not have a knife or gun until it becomes apparent that they actually do.

he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer.

He was charged with assault. He was convicted only of not obeying ze orders. The trial evidence was that he was beaten down by a short-assed goon who charged into the situation, sprayed first and didn't ask questions afterwards. The assault charges were fabricated to protect said goon from retribution for inflicting a punishment beating - take that up with the jury, who convicted him on the least of the charges, and the judge, who let him walk.

If you are worried about a gun shouldn't you get the occupants out of the car first? They could have handguns in their pockets but they could have a bazooka in the back seat, so keeping them in the car seems like bad tactics to me.

I've questioned that action before. Basically, it's about control. It's pretty obvious if your detainee turns around in the vehicle to aim a gun. If you invite them out of the car first, it's pretty easy to get out with a gun in hand but still covered by the vehicle, and then someone's going to get dead.

From what I remember of my training, in normal vehicle stops, you should keep complete control of the situation. This is for the officers safety. A non-combative detainee should have no

I remember from the first time this story was posted on slashdot, that some people made the exact same comment. I agree with it*. If the officers on the scene are really nervous about the occupants of the vehicle, and want to search it without having to worry about weapons being used by those occupants, they should ask the people to step out of the vehicle, and place themselves somewhere (a "safe area") where one officer can cover them easily while the car is searched; and where if they need to be g

Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol.

Check Peter's history. He has a previous conviction for being belligerent to a cop.

From Peter's blog [rifters.com]: I do not have a criminal record in Canada. I have never been convicted of anything in Canada; those of you who want to find evidence to the contrary, knock yourselves out and good luck.

I at no point had that assumption. It would not matter which direction he was heading; it is reasonable to assume that when crossing an international border, you may be randomly or non-randomly searched.

That is a Judges job and there is no "viva la revolution" about it. Portions of government overstep their bounds all of the time and get quietly told not to treat citizens, corporations non-citizens etc in certain ways.No conviction is pretty well equivalent to "he did it, there is a law against it but nobody in their right mind should really give a shit this time". At least that's how a lawyer explained it to me.

It shows the Judge thought it was bullshit that was a waste of taxpayers money via the court system as well.Time to get some adult supervision at those border posts.

There will never be adult supervision at these border posts, TSA, or anyplace similar.

The reason is simple enough -- the powers that be know that most of these positions are complete wastes of time. They're there to placate the rubes. That's all. If you want in the US, you get in. It's not hard. It will never be hard.

In addition, very powerful, very important people put very stupid children in positions of power at these places, in order to fill up the resumes of these very stupid children before they can become the new generation of very powerful, very important people (the stupid is assumed redundant by this point).

Any form of adult supervision would break both clauses -- an adult would take one look at the extreme waste of money and energy and run screaming (or break down crying), and/or fire or penalize the very stupid children (or, more likely, attempt to and then be smacked down by the aformentioned broken down crying adults who have already given up).

In addition, very powerful, very important people put very stupid children in positions of power at these places, in order to fill up the resumes of these very stupid children before they can become the new generation of very powerful, very important people (the stupid is assumed redundant by this point).

The real problem is that they can't find enough honest, decent, qualified and willing people to fill the expansion of border security positions we've had in the last ten years.

perhaps the pay isn't good enough? 40 hours a week should present one with livable wage from the US government. so around 30k-50k starting out, and go up from there based on inflation, and "dedication". not fucking up gets you inflation, above and byond the call gets you a raise, just like everywhere else should.

I can see the government not wanting a man to enter or pass through the US, but it seems a little harsh to disallow a guy to enter or pass through DNA samples. I mean, sometimes you gotta pass through those DNA samples to get to critically important chromosomes.

I didn't read the article thoroughly enough before I posted the submission; there is more detail on the case on a link from within the story [blogspot.com].

(It was not with the intention of gaining karma; my karma has been peaked out for years, ceased to care about it even before that)

A note on Slashdot's submission/moderation system; I had moderator points before I posted the story, and apparently have moderator points within the story. The editors may have their reasons for allowing it, but I don't feel that it's a good idea to allow story submitters to have moderation points within a story they post. Just sayin'

I did find this bit to perhaps be an indication of the judge's real feelings:

He told Peter that he was a puzzle to him; that he thought he would enjoy having a pint with Peter (Peter told him he would buy; Adair said he would get the next round);

It does sound like the judge would like to know a little more about his side of the story than what he could glean from the courtroom proceedings.

Oh, and thanks for the minor editing Timothy, it does read better that way.

I owned (and had read) first editions of all five (or four and a half) of his novels before the first story about him, so I don't think that he's that obscure. There are plenty of more popular authors whose books aren't as good. And now, because of a felony "non-compliance" conviction, he will be unable to enter the United States again. That's quite a hefty punishment for getting out of your car at a border checkpoint (especially with a superfluous beatdown in the bargain). Is that the result of a "good" law? You might see him at WorldCon 2010, but he'll be SOL if he wins a Hugo in 2011 (Nevada). A felony conviction will fuck over an American citizen.

Most importantly (for slashdot), he has released all of his novels and a number of shorts for free on the web [rifters.com] under a Creative Commons license. That makes him as slashdot-worthy as Hans Reiser.

This is why I think that airplane-lavatory smoking Quatari diplomat is an American hero. If no one had diplomatic immunity, who would make humorous shoe-bomb jokes on airplanes? He should go on a tour and aggravate the Border Patrol, the LAPD, etc., keeping things in perspective for our law-enforcement professionals. Unfortunately, I fear that the humorless State Department would declare him persona non grata (that, and Quatar already pulled him from U.S. consular duty).

Yes, they are. Despite that fact, the border guards in this case did lie, claiming that Watts tried to choke one of them. The evidence showed that this was a lie. Despite the fact that the guards were lying, he still got convicted for failing to lie down quickly enough when they ordered him to (after they had already punched him in the head).

The sad fact is that if you are given two conflicting orders, asking which to obey is illegal. You must do both at the same time, and if impossible, you are guilty of obstructing justice (of, as they call it here, felony non-compliance). If you put your hands to your face while being hit, you are guilty of assault. CCTV doesn't help when the laws (and application thereof) are broken already.

Yes, indeed. If there is one take-away from all this, it is obey. Hell, if a Canadian isn't polite enough, you need to be on your best behavior. So keep your head down citizen and don't ask any questions. If beaten, be sure to thank the border guard, and try to not bleed on their uniform. They hate when you bleed on their uniform.

Two different officers gave him contradictory orders. No matter which one he obeyed, he was "failing to comply" with the other one. On this pretense, they gave him the "bad outcome" they wanted so desperately.

That nobody involved directly with the case mentioned "entrapment" is an epic fail. His defense lawyer should be disbarred for incompetence.

Au contraire, his defense lawyer should be congratulated for keeping Peter's head above the muck and mire that are the US border and legal systems. And if you read Peter's blog, he speaks incredibly highly of Doug.

Robert Heinlein used to claim that an armed society is a polite society but he was wrong. An armed society has these dangerous pockets of paranoia because police, border guards, etc expect to be shot at and consequently behave as if everybody they deal with is going to do that.

An armed society will be a polite society - as long as the government and other powers that be don't try and treat the citizens like slaves.

I can understand an American being rather confused by this situation. After all, I was born here and lived here for more than four decades, and I've watched my fellow citizens vote away their rights for what seems like a very long time.

I grew up military. What I heard over and over again was that "The honor of the unit lies with each man."

You see, the fine police officers you know? They have a DUTY to police themselves. That's why "the few bad apples" argument doesn't hold up. Those fine police officers you feel sorry for? They have a duty to ARREST and TESTIFY AGAINST those bad apples.

That's why you can't say, "It's just a few bad cops." The supposedly "good" cops have an obligation to put a stop to it, and they're shirking their duties by refusing to do so.

This makes them culpable as accomplices. That's why there are no "fine police officers" any more, because if there were, they'd clean their house.

About twenty years ago, I once called a police officer an asshole, to his face, in front of his immediate superior. It was justified - that man was behaving like a psychotic over a minor traffic issue (jaywalking) involving a friend of mine. The officer took out his baton and threatened to "beat me into submission", at which time his superior collared him and led him back to the squad car, came back and apologized to us. The first officer was suspended without pay and later dismissed from the force as being unfit to be a law enforcement official. My friend brought suit against the local PD - it scared her pretty badly - and although she wasn't awarded damages, the verdict by the judge contributed to the officer being dismissed from the force.

At what point do citizens lose the right in this country to speak up when they are being harassed unfairly by an official of any kind, or when they see someone else being harassed unfairly?

Watts never offered violence (according to other witnesses; the one border patrol officer who was required to be there at the sentencing and who claimed that Watts attacked him first, Mr. Andrew Beaudry, waived his right to a victim's statement during the sentencing; that and a few other things tell me that he was probably lying about the events.

There are enough incidents such as this that go on to suggest that perhaps we need to start scrutinizing our border guard (and LE) hiring practices in a much more thorough manner, and disciplining them when they step out of line. Yes, it's a stressful job. Yes, it has the potential of danger. But anybody wearing the uniform who loses their head when there is no real physical threat to them simply does not belong in that job .

That officer was terminated because he acted outside of the policy required for use of force or threat of use of force. No one is arguing that when police act outside of their abilities that such action is justified.

The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physi

The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physical threat existed at the time, and acted as one should; that is, as if a real threat in fact did exist.

There was a time when police used violence as a last resort. It is now the first resort. It is sad that people like you and others willingly accept that.

That you find this acceptable anywhere at any time 'as a precaution' speaks volumes about you more than anything else.

Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.

It's still less dangerous than being a construction worker or cabbie, what effective police need to do is maintain control of the situation without resorting to physical violence. Any point where it devolves into violence where none is shown by another party is a failure on the police officers behalf.

I haven't accepted it because it's wrong. Why have you accepted violence against the non-violent as acceptable and to be encouraged?

Oh, and the risk hasn't changed significantly. Either you are ignorant and posting incorrect information as fact when you have no evidence of it at all, or you are a liar. You are more likely to die of homicide on the job as a retail manager than a cop. Being a cop is safe. Perhaps it's because they shoot first and ask questions later, and perhaps it's in spite of it.

Actually, I already pointed out that being a cop is safe because they have policies that make them safe. There is no reason that a retail manager can't also take precautions. Police (still) don't go around beating people as step 1; they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice. I don't encourage violence against the non-violent as a matter of practice, and your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding. Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-viole

Yes, they do. They approach a non-violent man standing in a parking lot, shout an order at him and then beat him. Just like the guy famous for "don't tase me bro" who was tased and beaten for speaking out of turn. OK, then not step 1. They ask nicely once and only once and then start hitting. They don't even need to leave time in there for compliance. So I'll call it step 1(a).

they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice.

Defensively? What did he do that was dangerous? Standing still in a parking lot is what they accused him of. If it was so dangerous, why did they talk to him first? And if it wasn't dangerous, why couldn't they have given him an additional 5 seconds to comply before beating him?

your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding.

That's arrogant to the point of being 100% incorrect. "If only you understood, you'd have to come to the same logical conclusion as me." There's absolutely no room for "you may have the same understanding as me and still come to a different conclusion."

I do understand. I've been pulled over multiple times for being in the wrong neighborhood. I've been harassed. I know friends harassed. I understand exactly what they do and why. "Contempt of cop" is a felony, and that's what he did. I understand that. I don't think it's right. I don't think it's defensible. There's no reason to beat an unarmed man who's standing still when they attack. He was a threat to no one.

Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-violent.

I agree. Evidently, you are ok with beating non-violent people. You think that if someone who has a distorted thought of threats thinks a non-violent person who isn't acting in a threatening might, at some time in the future, become a threat, then it's ok to start beating them before that happens. I understand what you are saying. And I disagree. No claims of "if you only understood" will change my thoughts on this.

Two minutes of sitting in your car and waiting for the officer to walk over to speak with you is much better for you and the officer in the sense that the officer doesn't have to decide whether or not you are an idiot or a threat and probably you will be able to travel into or out of the US instead of ending up in a jail cell.

You are making things up. The officer was talking to him, then walked off. He was looking for clarification of the situation from the person who was talking to him. He had no idea it would be 2 minutes until he was dealt with. There was no "pull over there and wait for a minute and I'll get right back." The officers treated him like a child. They gave him an incomplete order and expected him to guess the rest. And they acted like bad parents, spanking him when he exposed their bad orders and stupid policies. And he wasn't even trying. He just wanted to know that he was being subjected to the very-rare screening on exit and how long he'd have to wait before someone could get back with him.

They also increase the danger for themselves and every other law enforcement officer. Between the crimes I have personally witnessed police officers commit, the 'explanations' I have had off duty police give me for why it is OK for police to commit crimes, and witnessing police officers superior and colleges cover up crimes committed by their fellow police, I have to assume that in any physical altercation I witness between the police and anyone else, is a rogue cop.

Yeah, it's always a mistake to stand up for what you believe in...or even demand to be treated like a human being. Better by far to grovel and kiss the ass of the douchebag with the gun. You'll survive, probably. And what could be more important than that?